I don't know why you continue to maintain that disabling active scripting does not disable javascript. In MS terminology, disabling scripting of java applets means disabling scripting of both java AND javascript. I should know, as I work in the IIS group and test this stuff regularly. In addition, when I inquired to the MS MVPs, I got the following: Q: Is it possible for an end-user to disable Java Script in IE6? Where would I do this in the UI?
Yes, Under each security zone, look under Scripting / Active Scripting.
The fact that a company named Ecosoft managed to put a fullblown K&R C compiler on a 64K CP/M machine still boggles my mind. Everyone else was offering subsets. I could develop software for a big machine on my little S100 bus system.
I suspect in a saner world, something like CPM or Concurrent CPM would have emerged victorious. CCPM was doing multi-tasking (or at least multiple contexts) back when MSDOS was just happy to access disk drives and run a single program.
Probably would have been more intelligent to have had a standards body design the op system (or had one of the OS vendors offer their OS to said body). Then multiple vendors could have competed to implement that OS. While those kinds of things can lead to problems (mis-interpretations, etc), it could also have had some significant benefits. Even if only a few vendors survived future competitive thinning, the differences in implementations would have reduced vulnerability to virus problems, since it would be unlikely that the same holes would exist in all implemenations.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Boy I really wanted to avoid this stupid thread but this one is just too much to stay out of it.
MS really drives standards huh? You mean like, for example, technologies like Universal Serial Bus (USB) that they forced down the throat of every PC mfr in late 1994 and 1995 (long before the hardware was even tested and there was no software for it) and they couldn't come up with useful drivers until 1998? Meanwhile, the BEST and still the BEST implementation of USB came from Apple for the MAC and Apple wasn't even part of the WinTel duopoly. USB power management STILL doesn't work on Wintel boxes while iMacs have been able to wake up from a USB mouse move since day one.
And how about networking. You could plug two or more Apple systems together and they just worked years (maybe even a decade) before a Windows box and you didn't have to worry about DHCP or DNS or network driver levels or any other s**t.
These guys don't know about standards. They only know how to force stuff on the consumer and if it's not quite ready, WTF, who cares? They'll just end up selling another version of their OS that supposedly fixes the s**t that wasn't working in the previous version with no accountability.
takes a deep breath, looks around, and sheepishly climbs off his soapbox...
Abe, you apparently lack reading comprehension skills.
I stated that AT A TIME IN THE PAST, under some circumstances, that MSIE's 'disable' box for "activie scripting" *did*not*function* as it was intended to. This was a *bug* in the softare. You _do_ understand the word "bug", don't you?
I stated that this bug _has_been_eliminated_ in later versions of the program. If it is not obvious to you, this means I acknowledge that the newer versions of MSIE _do_ properly "not process" javascript, when ACTIVE SCRIPTING is disabled.
What you "know", and what *MICROSOFT* tells the world, are "incompatible".
Per the material on the Microsoft tech note that *you* were quoting as reference earlier.. repeating, from _your_ sources: "NOTE: In Internet Explorer, the term "Active scripting" or "ActiveX scripting" refers to both Microsoft JScript scripting and Microsoft Visual Basic Scripting Edition. When you complete this procedure, you disable both types of scripts."
In MSIE version 6. (version id 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2) There are two _separate_and_distinct_ sub-scections underthe "Scripting" section. one for 'active scripting' (enable/disable/prompt) one for 'scripting of Java applets' (enable/disable/prompt)
Now, why would MICROSOFT provide two _separate_ items, and publicly state that their "javascript" is enabled/disabled by the *first* item, when *you* KNOW that it is enabled/disabled byt the *second* one.
Note: "JScript" is Microsoft's bastardized varient of "javascript". The one they got *sued* over their unauthorized changes to the language (and *LOST* the suit -- had to restore the 'standard' functioning.)
I see only about two possibilities: 1) You really *do* know more about this than Microsoft. In which case you should really share that superior knowledge with MS, so that they can stop putting out "bad information" on their web-site. Can't imagine why you'd ask MS for verification of something you know more about than they do, though. 2) You don't understand that "active scripting", and "scripting of java applets" are talking about *different* things.
Do you note that Mr. Harris's directions, "Active Scripting", is *DIFFERENT* than that which you claimed? to wit:
"6. Scroll down to Scripting of Java applets,..."
*IF*, as you claim, 'scripting of java applets' disables javascript, _why_ does the other item 'active scripting' exist?
If you want to defend MS as the great promoter of standards then I suggest you bring some facts to the table. Until then keep your shallow viewpoint to yourself.
As one who has the scars and continues to receive wounds from this supposed purveyor of "Standardized" technologies I will be happy to engage in a conversation on the matter fact for fact. Did you attend the USB standardization meetings? Were you part of the back door dialogs where the MDA (Marketing Discount Agreement) was the argumentum ad baculum to convince sincere technologists to support flawed proposals?
We have what we have because of marketing savvy and marketing force. Let's not get carried away giving any credit beyond that. It is an insult to those who sincerely tried to reach industry standards consensus.
Having seen what the boys from Ft Meade can do, I'm confident in asserting that _any_ system is vulnerable to the infinite number of monkeys out there.
If everyone around here did that, the Wreck wouldn't last a week.
I think of Billy Gates as the Otto von Bismarck of consumer/small business technology.
He took a polyglot group of self directed principalities and made them speak a common language - essentially by using the brute force of the marketplace.
Still, it amounts to a federated form of government v. the monarchical style of Apple. And we know from history which form is thought to be the most efficient.
The result is that we have a lingua franca that enables us to do business with each other as transparently as possible. So, I will continue to pass around my Excel spreadsheets and Word docs and happily go about my business without fear of being misunderstood.
All the _good_ Unix sysadmins I know are religious bigots who won't dirty their hands with BSD / anything other than BSD. And as for the HP-UX / Solaris / SGI freakiness.
There's more to it than just DeadRat vs. Suse vs. Debian
OK, my friend, let's look at just whose "viewpoints" are indeed "shallow". We'll take them one by one, from your very first mistake: posting about something of which you obviously have only limited knowledge, a point which you indeed prove.
For someone who supposedly "attended meetings" on USB (which YOU brought up and tried to shoehorn into context), you appear to have slept through most of them.
MSFT was only a small part of the consortium that brought USB into being. Try Compaq, NEC, Northern Telecom, IBM, Intel and Digital as "CO-DEVELOPERS" of the USB protocol as we know it today, NOT as you suggest something MSFT "tried to force down the throat ..." (sic).
(That is an actual, and inarguable, FACT!)
With regard to "Apple" and networking ... to suggest that AppleTalk is a "networking standard" in the industry is as laughable as it is ridiculous.
(And that is a reality based FACT, which only a fool would argue against.)
But, where you really give yourself away is with your comments regarding "DHCP" and "DNS":
DHCP is a protocol for IP NETWORKS and was created by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the body responsible for Internet protocols, NOT MSFT!
(That, again, is an inarguable FACT!)
The fact that Apple talk does not use DHCP is a red herring introduced by you, as AppleTalk is NOT an ip network! (see above)
(Also an inarguable FACT!)
And without DNS, even a Apple/ Mac couldn't get anywhere on the Internet without knowing the ip address of every machine it wanted to visit.
(Another, absolutely inarguable, FACT!)
Now, as I originally indicated .. judging from the factual errors in your original diatribe, I'd say your "scars" are solely a figment of your imagination, and well you should have been "sheepish", as you admitted, for even stepping up on the soapbox with that kind of misinformation.
I hesitate to disagree with someone whose illustrious namesake was my boss for many years, but Microsoft's attitude to standards was (and probably still is) quite simple : attend the meeting and if everyone agrees to do it MS's way then fine, it becomes a standard. If not MS goes away and does things its own way and to hell with the rest of the world. More often than not, MS's way was NOT the best way.
It's worse than you think - my full name is Thomas J. Watson Jr.
As to what is best - it is often necessary in business to simply move forward. In fact, that may be the essence of leadership - moving forward.
The concept of what is best can be, and often is, discussed ad nauseam.
Business is, like politics, the art of the possible.
Microsoft did not enter into a position of hegemony by being the best engineers and designers. They got there by being the best business people.
The benefits to someone like me are that I can count on sending an Excel sheet to China and not worry about them being able to open it. I can send a Word document to Germany without any fear of incompatibility.
If the standards are de facto rather than de jure, and if they are evolving, rather than fixed - so be it. The marketplace will continue to define what is acceptable and smart businesses will continue to address the concerns of the marketplace in the best way possible at the time.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.